Our previous discussion of the significance of being human contained one major
omission: the simple fact that humanness is inextricably hound up
with being male
and female. Sexuality is one of the major characteristics of humanity, which,
if not unique in form since it is shared also with other animals,
comes to particular
expression for human beings simply because they are human beings.
Every life starts
with a sexual act, every environment in which a child grows up either has the
security and positive features of a family in which human sexuality
is appreciated
or it does not, development of personhood requires acceptance and understanding
of one's own sexuality, and historical examples abound on the
relationship between
the social health of a society and its sexual practices and
attitudes. Christians
are often charged with being so concerned about personal sins like
those involving
sex that they are completely unconcerned about gross social sills like racial
and sexual discrimination, and exploitation of the poor. Although a
fair measure
of this criticism may often be justified, to carry it too far is also
a critical
error. Sexual ethics may well not he the last word in Christian ethics, but it
should probably be among "the top ten." Throughout the Bible we have
the sexual relation between man and woman held up as an illustration
of the relationship
between God and His people; in the Old Testament idolatry is compared
to whoredom,
and in the New Testament the Church is described as the Bride of
Christ. As we
seek for ways to describe the relationship between the Christian and his Lord,
time and again we are driven back to the relationship between man and woman in
marriage as the most appropriate metaphor available to us.

It is evident to all that a revolution in sexual ethics has taken place in our
lifetimes-at least a revolution in comparison with recent generations. This is
not to imply that in previous times people were sexually pure and
today they are
corrupt, but rather that the public acceptance of pornography, sex-as-advertsing,
and sex-as-fun without commitments is a modern phenomenon in our
society. Our tolerances
are constantly being stretched and our moorings are shifting so
slowly and surely
that we are hardly aware of the fact that our attitude toward sexual
relationships
is daily being eroded by our culture, the theater, the television,
our literature,
and the lives and examples of our relatives and friends.

Non-Christians have quite commonly advocated a more
"liberalized" view
toward sex. Dr. Albert Ellis,1 starts with the thesis that all guilt feelings
are illegitimate, and goes on to defend premarital sex and
"civilized adultery,"
and to condemn "religious claptrap" and monogamous marriage. In group
sex experiments, Dr. Ralph Yanev2 reported to the California Medical
Association
that couples obtain "a greater sense of gratitude and self
esteem" and
that the relationship between couples is improved and made warmer and
closer when each views the other having sexual relationships with a
third party.
Such examples could be multiplied endlessly. It is not surprising that
nonChristians, starting from presuppositions about the nature of the
human being
frosts nonbiblical inputs (and supported primarily by a humanistic evolutionism
rather than any sound empirical data), should come to such conclusions.

The type of changes we see taking place today, however, cannot occur
without having
a profound effect on Christians' thinking as well. There is a general movement
to reinterpret Christian attitudes toward human sexuality on every
front so that
they are brought more into line with "new perspectives" on
human living.
It is this kind of movement with which we are particularly concerned
in this installment.

Biblical View of Sex

Sex is hardly a peripheral aspect of life, and sex is not a peripheral aspect
of the biblical revelation. The biblical basis and development of the
significance
of human sexuality appears immediately in the first two chapters of the Bible.
Genesis 1:27 teaches unmistakably that "mankind" is both
male and female.
The same chapters teach that sex existed before the Fall, that sex is therefore
part of the good creation, and Genesis 3 indicates that sex, like every other
aspect of life, was affected by the Fall. The greater and more blessed the gift
of God in the context of His good creation, the baser and more destructive the
abuse and perverson of this gift in the context of sinful human beings. Genesis
2:23-25 sets forth the nature of the sexual relationship between man and woman
when uncorrupted by sin,

This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be
called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man. Therefore a man leaves his father
and his mother
and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.

Both man and woman are made in the image of God. Their total
sexuality is defined
in such a way that they complement each other in every aspect of life. Both are
to help each other and to forsake all other human relationships at
the same level
at which they give themselves wholly to each other, so that as a new unity they can go forth together
to serve God in the world.

Subjection and denigration of women as persons has called forth a
deserved reaction
in modern women's rights movements. As usually happens, however, the pendulum
tends to swing too far. One symptom of this is the growing
consideration of marriage
as the affiliation between two individual persons who contract equally to meet
each others needs. Commonly used

There is a general movement to reinterpret Christian attitudes toward
human sexuality
on every front so that they are brought more into line, with new perspectives
on human living.

wedding ceremonies warn about the dangers of living too closely
together as one,
and call for a careful preservation of individual rights within their
looser marriage
affiliation. It is, of course, possible to enter into a marriage relationship
without seeking the unity of the marriage as the principal goal. The biblical
model promises the greater marriage blessings, however, when the
individual persons
and rights of husband and wife arc consciously and willingly subjected to the
unity and joint rights of the married couple. This is another example
of the large
number of possibilities in which human beings can choose to live at a
level less
than that which is God's best.

The Ten Commandments, that summary of what it means to live humanly in the way
intended by the Creator, are not silent on sex. The same commandments
that Jesus
said could be summarized as "Love the Lord your God with all
your heart and
soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself," also state "You
shall not commit adultery," and "You shall not covet your neighbor's
wife." It is not stretching the argument to claim that Jesus is
saying that
to love your neighbor means not to commit adultery and not to covet
his wife.

In the New Testament we call attention to a few passages to which we refer in
later discussion. In Matthew 19:3-6, Jesus refers back to the
"one flesh"
concept of Genesis 2, and adds.," So they are no longer two hot one. What
therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder." In I
Corinthians
6:16, Paul invokes the "one flesh" argument to show the
complete impropriety
of a Christian engaging in sexual relationships with a prostitute.
After the general
words concerning a Christian's walk in love in Ephesians 5:1-5, together with
the acts and attitudes that are ruled out if one is truly in Christ, Paul goes
on in verses 21-33 of the same chapter to set forth one of the most
exalted views
of the creation-intended character of human marriage: to he representative of
the relationship between Christ and His Church."

Arguments for a Revision of Sexual Mores

Three main arguments are advanced by advocates of a sexual revolution who claim
Christian support for their position. They may be summarized briefly
as follows:

1. Modern scientific understanding and changes in living styles make
traditional
(nonscientific, pre-modem) approaches to sexual ethics untenable for
the Christian
today.
2. Biblical teachings on sex are either unclear and/ or not
applicable to modern
life,
3. The authentic application of the Gospel to modern life calls for a response
dictated by Love, not by Law, and hence for radical changes where
Love overrules
Law in the modern situation.

Basic to all these arguments is the conviction that empirically valid
data describing
life in the world today have been scientifically obtained, and that these data
demand changes in sexual ethics if we are to be responsive to the way
things really
are and to the goals of Christian living. Whether or not such data really exist
should be the subject for objective analysis. Christians should not fall victim
to the common syndrome of accepting "scientific authority"
without question.

Most discussions of these "scientifically valid data" are stated in
quite general terms. For example, the church's preoccupation with
"technical
virginity" is criticized because.

there is little medical or psychological evidence that premarital
coital experience
between persons who subsequently marry is necessarily damaging either to their
emotional health or to their personal adiustment.4

It is difficult to evaluate "little ... evidence," and even
more difficult
to evaluate the conditions under which it was obtained. How does one test the
overall psychological effect of pre-marital intercourse on a future life? Can
one measure scientifically what that same life would have been like
without this
experience? Can one tell whether the particular individual has been forced to
settle for third, fifth or tenth best in life, rather than the best
and most fulfilling
relationship? Do astronomically increasing divorce rates in a
sexually permissive
society say nothing of empirical significance to judge whether these practices
damage "emotional health" or "personal adjustment"?

Note also the hedge words in this particular quotation;
"little," "persons
who subsequently marry," (hut this same result will certainly be used to
justify all pre-marital intercourse), "necessarily." If it
is not "necessarily
damaging," does that mean it is permissable? Of even more
crucial significance
is the almost universal ignoring in "scientific data" of this type of
the spiritual dimensions of the lives involved; should we expect to
find the same
dimensions of human experience between two non-Christians as between
two Christians?
To pose such a question is to risk being labelled a bigot or a medievalist-but
to ignore it is to deny a priori the significance of the Christian claims. What
might be a totally destructive practice if carried on by two persons who have
committed their lives to God in Christ, might he of only transient importance
in the lives ot two persons with no relationship with God, whose
primary concern
might be the satisfaction of their own rights and needs. Human beings can be so
scarred and insensitive as to lower themselves to live sexually like
many animals
for whom fornication, adultery and marriage do not exist.
Again, it is suggested that the biblical concept of one flesh"-the central
concept of the unity of marriage -is not useful any longer because

Modern psychology makes it difficult to accept the "one
flesh" concept
at least as it was construed by Paul and by many others in the
Christian tradition
until recent times.5

Modern human beings (always assumed to be so different from their
ancestors) must
be recognized, it is argued, as constituting essentially a "new
species"
in view of the possibilities of completely controlled con
ception, personality influencing drugs, the problem of extra leisure time, an
increase in the frequency of male/ female contacts, the high public
level of sexual
stimulation, the vanishing of the family as a reference group, the inclusion of
explicit sex language in our culture, and the advertising of sex as fun without
reference to marriage.6 So unique is our modern situation that we can no longer
believe that it is the best practice to limit sexual relations
between a married
couple only;

The data are from history and modem sociology, and from conversations with half
a dozen persons with some theologically informed self-awareness who have been
part of a co-marital relationship. . . - The flat assertion that no
man can have
good deep relationships including sexual intercourse with more than one woman
at a time is patent idiocy.7

This same pursuit of empirical data reports that such data "on
studying the
entire gamut of reported practice in which husbands and wives, by
mutual agreement,
are both involved in sexual relations with other partners"8
indicates positive
benefits;

The reports on the experience are so favorable-including a great deal
of unanimity
on the improvement of the marriage as a result of such experience . - . a new
and real warmth of gratitude toward the spouse . . . an actualization
of freedom.9

Finally, scientific experimentation on these matters is held up as
our only guide
if we are to avoid simple subjective responses in the future;

Only from experimental data can we learn how various patterns of
sexual behavior
. - . fit the requirements of living as followers of Christ in our own day and
situation . . . . We have no doubt that individual Christians and groups can be
found to volunteer to try controlled experimental patterns of all kinds.10

The difficulty of carrying out authentic scientific investigations to establish
cause and effect in the area of personal relationships is well known. How does
one choose a control group for comparison, and how does one choose
the experimental
group itself without prejudging and predetermining the outcome of the
investigation?
We have all too often seen supposed scientific findings in psychology
or sociology
advanced as the last word-only to be overturned in a few years when
the next wave
of enthusiasm for a new approach rolled in.

Perhaps of even greater importance is the implicit assumption in
these arguments
that scientific investigations of sexual aberrations can be morally
carried out,
and that the investigations themselves will not have immoral consequences for
the participants. H. B. Rubin carried out a research program on the effects of
marijuana on the sexual stimulability of males by exposing males to
pornographic
movies after ingestion of marijuana, while penile volume was measured
as an indication
of sexual stimulation.11 The whole debate that followed was concerned with
whether or not marijuana had effects that would warrant its legal restriction;
no one appeared to he concerned with the human rights and dignity of
those participating
in the research program, or of the morality of subjecting human
beings to immoral
practices, harmful to them, for the
sake of scientific understanding. But, of course we 'know" that exposure
to pornography is not harmuful! By direct and indirect implication
this approach
to scientific research reduces the potentially unique sexual expression of love
relationship between two whole persons to a simple matter of tumescence. It is
an example of scientific reductionism at its worst, and a warning to
any who would
like to carry on scientific research to provide the clear light for
sexual ethics.

Good science (science that is faithful to the real world as it is)
and good theology
(theology that is faithful to the biblical revelation) must
ultimately agree even
about human nature since there is only one Truth. Unfortunately it is easy to
come by both bad theology and had science, and both of these enter discussions
of the sexual revolution. Bad theology does not take full account of
the biblical
revelation concerning unredeemed human nature; it either neglects the
creationintended
redemption-restored potential goodness of human nature, or it
neglects the fallen
and sinful nature of man living in the world today. It is this
neglect of roan's
sinful nature that permits the fabrication of sexual Utopias (no less
than political
Utopias) based on the presupposition that human nature is essentially good and
capable of self perfection. Bad science underestimates the problem of assessing
the character of reality and attributes to limited empirical surveys
("half
a dozen persons with some theologically informed self-awareness")
significance
beyond their merit. Bad theology and bad science are combined when it
is concluded
that because it appears that people can do something without serious harm, it
follows first that all may do it, and then finally that all must do it. This is
the familiar "is/ought" fallacy we discussed earlier, 12 which attends
any and every attempt to derive a system of ethics from empirical
investigations.

The biblical model offers the greater marriage blessings when the
individual persons
and rights of husband and wife are consciously and willingly subjected to the
unity and joint rights of the married couple.

I believe that we are justified in viewing the results of such "scientific
investigations," therefore, with a good deal of healthy
skepticism. The opportunities
for overlooking vital parameters, of mistaking our subjective involvement with
objective investigation, and of neglecting the whole man in favor of
a view that
is at least partially if not totally reductionistic, are all so great that it
is generally impossible to prevent the subjective orientation of the
investigator
from dominating the interpretation of the data.

If our previous arguments are sound, 13 i.e., that the experiential realization
of humanness is a progressive one from conception through to a
restored relationship
with God through faith in Jesus Christ, then it is essential that a distinction
be made between different levels of humanness. Presumably the goal of
the Christian
is to live in such a way as to bring to fruition the
purpose of God's good creation in which man was formed in order to
live in relationship
with God. In the pursuit of relevant scientific data it cannot be
simply assumed
that a person's relationship with God is an irrelevant variable. It is possible
for human beings to live on various levels, each achieving some degree of the
humanity potential for human beings, but choices made carelessly may limit the
levels on which it is possible for an individual to live. Gardner
reminds us,

There are those who point out, correctly, that other societies have different
patterns of relationships between the sexes, patterns which often
approve of pre-marital
intercourse, and sometimes permit multiple partners. What they do not go on to
point out is that the quality of family life in these societies is
inferior, both
as Las as the status of women is concerned, and in romantic love to our ideals.
I write from experience of having worked among both polygamous and polyandrous
peoples. Our traditional ideal of virginity before marriage and chastity within
marriage can only be replaced by practices which are not only lower
on an ethical
standard, but yield less satisfaction to their practitioners. 14

I think it essential that we view these last two phrases, "not only lower
on an ethical standard," and "but yield less satisfaction
to their practitioners,"
not as two independent aspects that happen to coincidentally both be present,
but as complementary ways of saying the same thing: in God's created order, to
be lower on the ethical standard is to yield less satisfaction.

Proposed Difficulties with the Biblical Record

A second reason commonly offered in favor of a sexual revolution acceptable to
Christians is that the Bible does not really serve us well in
providing reliable
guidance about these issues. When Ecclesiastes says that there is nothing new
under the sun (1:9), "Ecclesiastes is dead wrong. In America
today, nothing
could be farther from the truth.15 Traditional sexual morality
is useless,16
the sex ethics taught by the Church are only the ethics of a past society,17 "much
of what Christian authority passed off as God's revealed truth was in
fact human
error with a Pauline flavor,18 modem man repeatedly verifies by
his own experience
that the Church's "eternal verities" are false,19 commands
like "Thou
shalt not commit adultery" are "Divine fiats" arising
from "conflicting
texts written for nomadic societies two or three thousand years ago.20
Such claims sound like propaganda or subjective bias related to a rejection of
biblical inspiration and authority; what evidence are they based on?

There are many examples, it is argued, in the Old Testament law with which no
Christian would any longer agree, as for example the death penalty
for fornication
in Deuteronomy 22, or the exclusion of eunuchs and bastards from the assembly
of the Lord in Deuteronomy 23.21 In the context of the system of Old Testament
law, that dealt with what is worn, property laws, lending laws, and
dietary regulations,
the commandment against adultery should he seen as a commandment
against "cheating
or stealing from the third party (partly connected with property and
inheritance
rights)," which does not apply to many totally different situations today
such as those in which there is a "genuine acceptance of the third person
into a relationship by husband or wife; mutually 'open marriages,' or even the
honest 'swinging' of the Houston
appartment houses.22 Since all these arguments fail to make the
biblical distinction
between the content of the moral law, which is a description of what it means
to live in a human way as a result of the way in which human nature is created
(and which is clearly reinforced by Jesus himself in Matthew 5:27-30), and the
Old Testament ceremonial or civil law, which was a law prescribed for
a time for
the nation of Israel and which was done away with after the death and
resurrection
of Christ, they carry little weight in arguing for the unreliability
or irrelevance
of the biblical revelation on sexual ethics.

Another approach to removing the biblical testimony from the area of relevance
is to call into question the real meaning of the original Greek words
translated
"fornication," "adultery" etc. in the New Testament, and to
claim that these terms applied primarily to "pagan practices of cultic and
commercialized prostitution,"23 or to invoke "modern
scholarship"
as the basis for stating

The many New Testament injunctions, therefore, against "fornication,"
in AV and RV ... cannot with certainty be construed in the traditional sense as
explicitly forbidding all extra-marital intercourse.24

Amazement is expressed that the "typical American" could
still believe
that the Bible clearly indicates that God's law includes monogamy, premarital
chastity and proscription of adultery; the appeal is to
"scholarship":

Infinitely better scholars than we have established that one cannot
find any literal
or simple connection in the Bible claiming that the above statements were God's
law or will . . . . There are no laws of sexual behavior consistently spelled
out in the Bible.25

Unfortunately for this kind of argument, which is really an appeal to
authority-just
a different authority than that appealed to by a traditional biblical
interpretation-"biblical
scholarship" is, if anything, less concrete even than
psychological or sociological
scholarship. What passes for biblical scholarship is often heavily weighted by
presuppositions that determine the conclusions reached quite independently of
the biblical data. Historian Gary Ferngren has commented,

The currently dominant schools of New Testament scholars (who are
mostly theologians
and not historians) have limited themselves unnecessarily by allowing
the intrusion
of improper plsilosophical presuppositions into their work and by the
use of hypercritical
methods of research that are applied in no other area of history.26

The argument that we cannot accept what the Bible appears to be saying because
some biblical scholars say we cannot must also be treated with
considerable skepticism.

Finally the claim is made that exegesis of biblical passages cannot be done to
produce clear ethical guidance for today. For example,

Problems of exegesis make it very difficult to reach assured conclusions about
what, if anything, Jesus actually taught to Jews about the morality of specific
sexual acts . . . the question whether the details of sexual morality
fall within
or outside the range of revelation.27

Attempts to develop sexual ethics based on the "one flesh"
concept are
criticized because Matthew 19:3-6 represents only an ad hominum
argument by Jesus
against the Pharisees and cannot be universalized beyond its context,
and because
Paul's use of the "one flesh" idea in I Corinthians 6:16
"is questionable
exegesis on his part and seems to involve the logical absurdity of a Casanova's
being 'one flesh' with a multitude of women simultaneously."28
The Ephesians
5 passage relating human marriage with the relationship between Christ and the
Church has been misunderstood,

The Pauline analogy to the union of Christ and his Church was surely
used in reverse;
i.e., Paul used the human experience of marriage to explain to his readers by
an analogy his visions of Christ's relation to the Church.
Regrettably the imputation
of sacred tones to ordinary human sexuality, caused by repeating the erroneous
reading of this passage has caused trouble for hundreds of years.22

Those who argue for a sexual revolution have exegetical problems because they
do not accept an authoritative and reliable Scripture given by inspiration of
God.

Investigation of these arguments soon reveals that what is at stake
is not problems
in exegesis, but rather two quite different views of the nature and authority
of the biblical revelation. Those who argue for a sexual revolution
have exegetical
problems because they do not accept an authoritative and reliable
Scripture given
by inspiration of God. Confronted with any staternent that appears to
contradict
their extra-biblically constructed position on sexual ethics, they
are constrained
to throw up their hands and bemoan the difficulty of interpretation.

The Christian can welcome any genuinely authentic scientific investigation of
the questions of human sexiuality that does not already import conclusions into
its methodology or its interpretation. Confronted with apparent data
that contradict
the biblical revelation, the Christian should not reject them in some
non-rational
outpouring of indignation, but should instead demand to see how the canons of
authentic scientific inquiry have been followed throughout the study
under consideration.
What the Bible teaches about human sexuality and marriage is so
plain, often repeated,
and ifflustrated in the biblical text that it should be readily testable provided only that
authentic scientific frameworks are designed to test it.

Divorce

The reader may feel that we are getting far off base by inserting a discussion
of divorce at this point in our discussion. We cannot avoid it,
however, for advocates
of a sexual revolution regard the historic changes in the Church's
attitude toward
divorce as a prima facie
case with which all others must be compared. Their related attempts
to draw analogies
between changing attitudes toward appropriate foods to cat and
changing attitudes
toward the appropriate place of sex in life22 may he once again discounted as
a misunderstanding of the difference between the moral and ceremonial or civil
laws. The ease of divorce, however, appears to be a rather more
difficult one.

Hiding behind comfortable legalisms is one such artifice. For hundreds of years
the Church used what is the most explicit Biblical material in the whole area
of marriage and sex, i.e., the proscription against divorce (Mark 10:2; Matt.
19:3-9), to foil what was empirically obvious: That in some cases the
loving thing
for all, was to permit divorce (and re-marriage). Today everyone has forgotten
that this was the cutting edge of the "moral" issue a century ago. If
you don't believe me, try to find a legal loophole for divorce as practiced by
tens of millions of Christians every year.28

The attitude of a majority of Christians toward divorce has changed
over the years.
If, however, the implication of the above quotation were valid, the response of
the evangelical Christian should not be to look for other regions
where the biblical
injunctions can he disregarded, but rather to rethink current attitudes towards
divorce and bring them hack into line with the biblical pattern. The question
we must consider is whether the changing attitudes toward divorce do constitute
an actual disregard of biblical teaching, and whether the situation
is truly parallel
to that dealing with adultery and sexual practices.

Although adultery and sexual purity are mentioned in the Ten
Commandments, divorce
is not. Examination of a concordance shows that there are a total of 26 verses
in the entire Bible in which any mention of divorce is made; just for
comparison,
there are 66 verses mentioning adultery Although divorced persons are mentioned
earlier (Numbers 30:9; Leviticus 21:7, 14; 22:13), the introduction of divorce
as a practice does not appear until Deuteronomy 24:1, 3, where
permission is granted
to a man to put away his wife in divorce if "he has found some indecency
in her." This is the thrust of the attitude toward divorce throughout the
Bible; in this context Joseph considered divorcing Mary, when he knew that she
was pregnant but did not yet know the cause (Matt. 1:19). For a woman
to receive
a bill of divorce was a mark of impurity on her life, and this
situation was used
as a symbol of Israel's unfaithfulness to God in the Old Testament
(Isaiah 50:1;
Jeremiah 3:1,8). Malachi 2:6 says, "I hate divorce,' says the
Lord God,"
When a man married a woman, he took responsibility for her life and welfare; if
he put her aside by divorce without the most severe cause, he was doing her a
grave injustice, for she became an outcast in society and barred from community
life.

By the time Jesus was teaching on earth, the practice of divorce had
been distorted
as so many other practices through the years. The responsibility of the husband
for his wife was no longer regarded seriously, and wives were put
away in divorce
for reasons that did not justify it. One of the strains of Jesus' teaching was
that God is not satisfied with the external observation of regulations by his
people. He points out that the sin of adultery does not require the actual act,
but
starts in the heart with its indulgence in lust (Matt. 5:27-29).29.)

Insight into Jesus' attitude toward divorce can be gained by looking at Matthew
19:3-9, where the Pharisees came to Jesus with another in their long
list of puzzle
questions, designed to trap him; his response is to show the creation-intended
purpose of marriage. The Pharisees ask, "Is it lawful to divorce
one's wife
for any cause?" It is evident that marital fidelity was part of
Jesus' consistent
message to those who would be his followers; the Pharisees hope to trap him by
forcing him into a contradiction of the Mosaic custom. Jesus responds
initially,
therefore, not to their specific question, but to a clarification of
the creation-intended
purpose of marriage, an understanding of which is essential for a discussion of
divorce. He points out that when men and women live in the way
intended by God's
good creation purpose (when they are fully human 13), the union between man and
wife is full and complete. Under these conditions divorce is irrelevant. Here
then we learn the ideal situation, the situation applying to those
whom "God
has joined together" because they belong to him. Such a
situation can apply
in only the most indirect way to a non-Christian husband and wife, of whom it
would be foolish to say that their relationship represents in any existential
form the relationship between Christ and the Church.

The Pharisees press on, hoping to close their trap, by asking how it was that
Moses "commanded" that a certificate of divorce be given.
Jesus immediately
points out that it was not a matter of "command" but of
"permission"
because of their "hardness of heart." In an imperfect world, account
must be taken of these imperfections in dealing with daily life.
Although divorce
is neither intended nor necessary if men and women live in a fully human way as
God's people, in the actual contingencies of life divorce may become
a necessary
recourse. But then Jesus adds his final words as a warning against
the contemporary
custom of abusing divorce to indicate that a man's responsibility to his wife
was so great that only infidelity was an appropriate grounds for divorce. The
Pharisees had asked him if there were any cause that would justify
divorce; Jesus
replies that any cause is insufficient-only marital infidelity is of
a grave enough
nature to justify a man's treating a woman in that way The question Jesus was
responding to is, When can a man put his wife away? His answer is,
Under no conditions
can he subject his wife to this judgmental action except if her own
actions have
already destroyed the marriage unity.

Our next task is to consider the application of these principles to life today.
We have already pointed out that neither the permission of nor the commandments
against divorce are a portion of the moral law, as is the commandment against
adultery. Divorce is a practice admitted to deal with the
imperfections of mankind;
it is therefore in the nature of an exception to be tolerated, not a guide to
he advocated as a general panacea. The person who jumps from spouse to spouse
to satisfy his/her own self-indulgent whims, is indeed guilty of
sequential adultery.
Nothing has changed; the law still holds.

If conditions exist today comparable to those that existed when Jesus discussed
the question, i.e., if divorce involves a husband cutting off support
of his wife
and ruining her reputation, while she still desires
to be with him and has not been unfaithful, then divorce today is
just as reprehensible
as it was then. It is also essential, however, that we take note of changes in
the social customs and conditions since New Testament days. If it is
not a question
of "a husband putting away his wife," but of two persons
agreeing that
the marriage is dead, the situation is quite different. If it is not a question
of a woman being disgraced, thrown out without support, and
effectively disenfranchised
from her place in society by the capricious acts of her husband in a
male-dominated
society, but of two people agreeing to part with each sharing part of
the burden
of divorce, the requirements arc not at all the same, In an imperfect world the
best course may well be to make divorce legally possible so that each partner
to the broken marriage may be free to seek to build a better life
independently.
Such a conclusion does not invalidate the basic reality that an
unbreakable onion
between husband and wife, each living in close relationship to God
and fulfilling
as nearly as possible the creation-intended structure of marriage, is
still God's
best. But it recognizes that to attempt to impose "God's best" upon
those both unable and unwilling to experience it can so distort
"God's best"
that it ceases to be that at all.

Paul points out in Romans 7:2 and I Corinthians 7:39 that death frees
the surviving
husband or wife from the commitments of the marriage relationship. It
may be argued
that this is the reason that infidelity is sufficient grounds for divorce even
in Old Testament times; infidelity is an act that marks the death of
the marriage
commitment. Repentance, confession and forgiveness are all necessary
for the resurrection
of the marriage. The severity with which infidelity is judged both in the Old
Testament and by Jesus and other authors in the New Testament is
additional testimony
to the non-biblical nature of arguments for the relaxation of sanctions against
it. There are other acts or conditions, however, that also mark the death of a
marriage; when a marriage is recognized by both husband and wife as being dead,
divorce may be justified on the same grounds as those justifying infidelity as
the grounds for divorce. This is not the time to attempt to fix
blame, to define
guilty and innocent parties, or to indulge in legal efforts at retribution for
real or imagined wrongs; this is the time for a quiet burial of the
marriage with
grief, and for the picking up of new lives.

Divorce, although an exceedingly difficult and challenging problem to treat in general terms, does not
provide a useful analogy for those who would argue for the
abolishment of "adultery"
or the encouragement of open sex. In many ways, a consideration of the biblical
context of divorce heightens the sanctity of marriage and the basic
roles of sexuality
in human relationships.

FOOTNOTES

1Albert Ellis in talk sponsored by the Center for Creativity and Growth, Palo
Alto, California, June 23 1972, as reported in the Palo Alto Times.2Ralph D. Yanev in talk to California Medical Association convention
at Anaheim,
California, as reported in the Palo Alto Times, March 12, 1973.3The biblical concept of "one flesh" in marriage expresses
a unity that
does no violence to the individual personalities involved, hot rather
frees them
to he truly themselves in what most be described as a genuine and
mystical union.4Sexuality and the Human Community (SHC), a report of a Task Force of
the Council
on Church and Society of the United Presbyterian Church (1970), p. 29.51969 Report of a Study of the Faith and Order Commission of the
Canadian Council
of Church, "The Biblical and Theological Understanding of
Sexuality and Family
Life," p. 44.6R. and D. Roy, Honest Sex, Signet (1968), pp. 27-36.7lbid., p. 1158Ibid., p. 122.91bid., p. 123, 124.101hid., p. 200, 201.11See, for example, Science 192, 1086 (1976).12R. Bube, "Science Isn't Everything," Journal ASA 28, 33 (1976).13R. H. Bube, "The Significance of Being Human," Journal
ASA 31, (1979).14R. F. R. Gardner, Abortion: the Personal Dilemma, Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids (1972),
p. 256.15R. and D. Roy, op cit., p. 26.16Ibid., p. 15.17Ibid., p. 17.18lbid., p. 60.19Ibid., p. 17.20Ibid., p. 24.21SHC, p. 9.22R. Roy, "Is There a Christian Basis for a Sexual
Revolution?" Journal
ASA 26, 76 (1974)23SHC, p. 27.24Ibid., p. 44.25R. and D. Roy, op. cit., p. 68.26B. Ferngren, "The New Testament and Historical Criticism,"
Journal ASA
26, 46 (1974).27SHC, p. 41.28bid,, p. 44.29By these comments Jesus does not abolish the law against adultery,
as some have
contended, but instead intensifies its relevance by showing that ft is not only
an act of adultery which is an offense against God, but the attitude
of lust that
precedes and nourishes the act.